Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
New complaints handling guide offers advice to local authorities
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman is today issuing new guidance on effective complaint handling for local authorities.Based on previous documents, the new guide offers practical,...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Family Law Awards winners announced in virtual awards ceremony
The winners of the Family Law Awards 2020 were announced at 4pm during a much-anticipated virtual awards ceremony. Over the past ten years, the Family Law Awards has recognised the leading players in...
Behaviour-based divorces still merit close consideration
Some recent cases illustrate the evidential and procedural issues involved in dealing with proofs on the merits of divorce, which are worth considering even though most cases may conclude on a...
View all articles
Authors

FINANCIAL REMEDIES: McRoberts v McRoberts [2012] EWHC 2966 (Ch)

Sep 29, 2018, 18:31 PM
Slug : financial-remedies-mcroberts-v-mcroberts-2012-ewhc-2966-ch
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Nov 5, 2012, 05:50 AM
Article ID : 100807

(Chancery Division, Hildyard J, 1 November 2012)

A consent order was made in 2003 in relation to financial claims following divorce. The order provided for the husband to transfer the matrimonial home and all shares in a specified company to the wife and to pay her a lump sum of £450,000 in a number of instalments. The husband failed to keep up the instalments and he was declared bankrupt.

There was a large deficiency in the bankruptcy and no distributions could be made to unsecured creditors. The wife received nothing and now was owed £350,000 including interest. A year after being declared bankrupt the husband was discharged from bankruptcy. The husband applied to discharge the lump sum order. Section 281(5) of the Insolvency Act 1986 included orders made in financial proceedings as an exclusion from the bankrupt's discharge of debt although they may be discharged at the court's discretion.

In all the circumstances of the case the balance remained in favour of keeping in place the obligation to the wife, there was no sufficient reason to override the default provision. The husband's application was dismissed.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from